I get businesses unstuck (90% of the time that simply means helping them get out of their own way). That’s what I do. This discussion most typically revolves around Taleb’s concept of Antifragile. And while I find Nassim Taleb whipsmart trying to explain Antifragile in a pragmatic business sense, and business environment, is semi-impossible (or at least beyond my intellectual capabilities).

Suffice it to say almost every business I have ever interacted with has struggled with balancing, or applying proportionate effort, pragmatism and possibilities – standardized process and agility/vision to meet opportunities. Most businesses see them as binaries where I see them as malleable. Most businesses see them as an organism and I see them as molecular. That said. While I love conceptual discussions (and actually believe the future of business will be owned by the ones who can think conceptually) my job is to frame in the abstract and deliver in the concrete – balancing idealism and realism. I call it ‘’pragmatism and possibilities’ and suggest its all about having your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

Suffice it to say that 99% of the best businesses have figured out how to successfully keep their feet in the clouds and their head on the ground.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know it looks like I got it twisted around, but I did not. Good businesses are always walking with the future in mind. Always traveling toward possibilities. Always seeking ‘what’s next.’

Good businesses are always closely listening to the drumbeat of the feet of what is happening around them. Ear to the ground insuring everyone in the business is keeping their head in the game today. I have called it mastering pragmatism & possibilities. But, in reality, it is the ability to have your feet in the clouds and head on the ground.

I tend to believe if more people thought about it this way businesses would actually manage their pragmatism better (i.e., maximize existing resources in an agile way), would have more hope (i.e., maximize opportunities that arise better) and achieve more possibilities than they could ever imagine.

You have to admit the current definition – feet on the ground & head in the clouds – just ain’t working that well these days. Businesses seem to be more woefully stagnant <albeit always ‘talking’ change> and have more despair and lack of hope with regard to actionable possibilities than ever.

Why? Well. I am sure I could invest dozens of pages sharing thoughts on why, but instead I will focus on what I would consider the intellectual aspects, i.e., what is going on in with our attitudes that affect our heads, how we think and how we approach these things.

** note: if one were to need a playbook on how to discuss pragmatism & possibilities with a business this is as good a place to start as any – deconstructing each issue.

Issue one. over-simplification

Suffice it to say we have devolved into a society of sound bites. This is true in business even moreso. In business it seems to be all about simplicity. In everyday Life it is ‘summarize it for me’ or ‘oh, it’s simple <insert some explanation here>.’ In the end I can’t figure out if should be pointing the finger at us or them.

Them <management & leadership> because they think we are not capable of understanding some form of complexity and therefore they only offer up simplified versions of what needs to be communicated.

Or us <the employees> because we either:

<a> demand a sound bite under the guise of ‘we only have time for the headline’

<b> we only latch on to the fragment of the whole which we believe summarizes the whole.

Therefore I will point the finger at all of us and them. Here is a Truth.

Most things are just not that simple, in fact, they are complex. An effect can have multiple causes and a cause can have multiple effects. I say this despite the fact, naturally, we would like all the dominoes to line up one after another and when one falls the next naturally is impacted and falls. Causality is just an easier thing to grasp.

Well. Things don’t really work that way. Especially in a business environment. Maybe in a controlled test environment but, in business, events are typically bombarded from a variety of directions and while not all causes are created equal <some can impact more than others> most things are too complex to be simplified into ‘one thing.’ And, yet, we oversimplify again and again and again.

Over simplifying simply means ignoring complexities.

Over simplifying simply means being consciously ignorant.

Over simplifying … well … just doesn’t work in the long run.

It eases you through the moment only to have to doubly <or exponentially> invest energy later on. Let me put this as simply as I can: over simplification just doesn’t work.

Instead of dumbing things down to some simplistic sound bite we need to raise the level of general understanding & knowledge to the level of complexity of the ideas & systems in which a business works – in other words, unravel the complexity into understandable components. Factually, seconds of involvement <sound bites> versus minutes of involvement <deeper complex discussion> leads to degrees of real knowledge, i.e., seconds leads to shallow knowledge or let’s call it ‘less knowledgeable.’ Over simplification will not demystify uncertainty and cannot help us do what we really need to do — reconcepting & rethinking that which is (which is the portal to unlocking potential).

What I am suggesting is difficult and uncertain work. But certainly more satisfying and inspiring when we solve and recreate and it certainly is a more effective way to keep your feet in the clouds and head on the ground..

I can unequivocally state that the fate of possibilities for a business, any business, lies in balance if we don’t invest in the hard work of ‘non over simplification.’

And worse? We won’t solve any of the problems we face if we do not address this.

This leads me to …

Issue two. being intellectually insightful is about hard work.

Let me begin by suggesting that good ideas cannot be decided by number of tweet votes in favor of. Business ideas do not compete on American Idol nor, frankly, should they compete in any larger group. We are not all judges <and probably shouldn’t be on American Idol either>.

Why? Good ideas are rarely popular; therefore, I don’t really want a business idea to win some meaningless popularity contest. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize both the pragmatism & the possibilities in business we have to hunker down and work hard … work hard in that we need to use what we have to rethink things … use all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. That is the kind of work that hones the intellectual insightfulness necessary to keep your feet in the clouds and your feet on the ground and, well, make progress. Smart progress.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of the systems in which we are embedded and which are embedded in us. And while you may balk at something like ‘intellectual insightfulness’ as too far reaching or ‘elitist’ … suffice it to say we just need to be smarter … less ignorant … more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification and reconcepting ideas and systems in which we live in and … well … just plain rethinking shit.

Suffice it to say that there is nothing simple when talking about world-changing ideas … because talking will not simply make the world change.

I read somewhere recently that ‘if you remove this boundary … the only boundary left is our imagination.’

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Imagination is important, but even imagination is complicated and difficult and tends to not offer tidy solutions. Especially if you don’t invest in the hard work.

We need to be doing more of ‘using your imagination within the box of what exists.’ We don’t need to be wandering aimlessly ‘outside the box’ but rather using our imagination insightfully and creatively WITHIN the box and expand the boundaries.

It is all hard work, but hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking work.

Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing <random dreaming>, thinking is a blue collar job. Thinking is all about work. Hmmmmmm … it is quite possible that what I just wrote defines “head on the ground” better than anything I have ever written before.

Anyway. As a corollary to issue number two …

Issue three. innovation is not <just> technology.

What makes oversimplification even more challenging is that for some reason we seem to be associating innovation with technology … and just technology. We can’t … and shouldn’t.

This type of thinking leads us to possibly believe technology innovations will eventually solve all problems and maximize everyone’s Life as some point. That is a very dangerous idea.

It is dangerous because in reality if we focus just on technology as the solution we are actually preventing the real change we need. It’s a very dangerous idea because it completely removes the human aspect. I cannot tell people how often I need to remind everyone technology augments humans (if you seek potential & possibilities), not humans augmenting technology.

Regardless. Minds need to innovate too. Thinking and attitudes need to evolve and innovate. New thought systems, economic systems and systems in which people live eat and breath all need to evolve and that happens through innovation <whether technology is involved or not>. Technology is simply a path that runs parallel to culture <or society> basically amplifying everything that is happening on the parallel path <the corollary to that is … with nothing to amplify the technology remains silent>.

Technology and culture and people and business are entangled. Everything is connected with everything. Technologies may enable new ways of doing things as well as thinking. This effects culture so culturally we need to innovate to structure how those technologies will be involved in our lives <so that we can dictate a little how they are incorporated> and we need to innovate our thinking and culture so that we can actually impact how technology evolves <so that we can dictate how what technology is innovated in some form or fashion>.

At the moment it seems like we respond to technology rather than proactively drive technology. Yes. Technology has certainly dramatically improved the overall quality of business but, at some point, technology is not a reason for being, but rather simply an enabler for being. The paradox is that the system we have now may make amazing new technology possible, but at same time is creating such cultural conflict that maximizing technology ‘what could be’ seems impossible. We need to innovate the systems in which technology exists.

Economically, culturally and philosophically. All systems need to see innovation.

Issue four. adaptability does not mean ‘no strategy’.

Businesses inherently like structure. They see structure as replicable (safe, efficient & maintaining whatever level of effectiveness they have currently attained). The problem is emphasizing structure, pragmatism, actually increases the fragility of a business (source: antifragile) and limits the scope/horizon view of pursuing possibilities. With a ‘feet on the ground’ philosophy structure & construct of resources/systems/process dictate the direction, velocity and vision of the business. In other words, pragmatism is the source of possibilities. If you flip the equation, pragmatism becomes the enabler of possibilities. This does not mean a business has no strategy, all it does is maximize flexibility & agility to pragmatically apply resources to possibilities as they arise. Taleb calls this AntiFragile, Toffler called it the polymalleable organization, HBR has called it “Agile”, I call it “feet in the clouds, head on the ground” or “managing pragmatism & possibilities.” Call it whatever you want but it is the issue a business needs to address in order to be successful in the future.

<that’s it for my issues>

Look.

Hope and possibilities grounded with enlightened pragmatism abound in today’s business world if you look hard enough <and have your feet in the clouds an head to the ground>. But none of it comes easy. These types of things are rarely just given, they need to be earned mostly thru hard work.

I don’t believe simplicity is bad.

I don’t believe being optimistic or having a positive attitude is bad.

I don’t believe technology is bad.

I don’t believe hard work, smartly done, is bad.

But we seem trapped in the old paradigm of “head in the clouds & feet on the ground.” This old paradigm kind of separates work & thinking <vision> in a non useful way. And I … well … I admit I sometimes think this paradigm encourages a slightly warped version of some lazy thinking.

And we cannot be lazy moving forward. And we certainly cannot afford to be lazy thinkers. For in this type of laziness lurks ignorance and it is ignorance we should fear. Not any ideological argument or technological innovation which inserts itself into our daily lives but ignorance.

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

In the end.

Effective business has always been about applying the right resources at the right time against the right opportunity (or challenge). Period.

Efficient business has always been about applying resources in a consistent way all the time to be applied against the opportunities that exist. Period.

Agility resides in the optimization betwixt the two. Either, alone, is fragile. The fragile mixture, proportionate focus, of the two actually makes one Antifragile (stealing from Taleb). That said. A business is most likely able to find the optimal proportion by, well, keep their head to the ground and their feet in the clouds.

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

And how do you do that? Keep your feet in the clouds and your head on the ground. Be pragmatic and explore possibilities.

I recently revisited what I wrote that day and, well, wouldn’t change a thing. I am sure there are some lessons in that:

– my North Star remains my North Star

– my beliefs, and principles, remain true

– my understanding of me, well, maybe my understanding of who I am, what I care about and what I want to do (in terms of making an impact) remain unchanged

Your visit here.

I am not a big business or self help book reader. I often find they simply rehash a variety of things, thoughts and ideas that if you have been in the business long enough you pretty much know already. On occasion someone does a great job of articulating a thought and in those cases I take my hat off to them and wish I could have said it as well. With all that said I believe people would be better off reading less of these things and reading & learning more about other things. Anything. To me the most interesting people in the world are the ones who have a variety of interests. That doesn’t mean you should not have a specialty just that maybe your specialty would be even better if you knew more about other things.

I do believe: Ideas result from a new combination of specific knowledge about products with general knowledge about life and events.

I do believe: Interesting people are extensive browsers in all sorts of fields of information.

I do believe: The more of the elements of the world around us which are stored away in the mind, the more the chances are increased for the production of new and striking combinations, or ideas.

I do believe: There are certain things you just cannot write, or think of, until you have lived through certain experiences and filled your reservoir of knowledge to a point when you can drink freely from it.

I do believe: Knowledge is basic to good creative thinking (and interesting personalities).

I do believe: Conflict done well, enlightened conflict as it were, is healthy, challenges the status quo, sparks thinking and fresh ideas.

Interestingly all of those things are also believed by James Webb Young in his 1937 booklet “How to Produce Ideas” (a book on my list of things everyone should read).

So if you want someplace to visit to see a variety of different ideas on some of the most random topics you can think of (although there is business stuff) then I hope you visit here and maybe learn something, maybe chuckle a little, maybe have your curiosity piqued somewhat. There will be some fiction, some fact and always an opinion. I guess my objective is personally reflective (I just want to share some thinking and writing) as well as professionally I have a desire to help broaden someone’s perspective on the world. So, even if one person visits here and starts thinking about something new or in new ways, then I imagine I would have achieved success. Of course, if someone wanted to hire me for a project or something I wouldn’t be opposed to that either.

A system of winning: an emphasis on being a winner tends to beget a ‘win at all cost’ mentality

An implied system: winners know something losers do not.

I will note that winning is a finite game pursuit – someone wins, someone loses. The only way to win is to end something and in that end one arises as alive and another, or others, lie dead in the winners wake.

The issue resides in the fact the visionaries or ‘future proof’ performers tend to be Infinite players. Infinite players do not seek wins, they seek progress, new beginnings and new iterations. In fact. They create games for winners to win. I mention that (Carse, Infinite and Finite) because I would suggest businesses, and Life, needs finite (winning is what is important to me) people and infinite (playing well is important to me) people – working together.

That said.

Wins are like umbrellas. They make a poor roof. Yeah. A lot of people will disagree with me on this because they will claim “a win is a win and you cannot have it taken away.” But a win is not always a win and what can never be taken away is how you actually played the game to attain the win (or loss).

I always think of Roberto Duran and ‘no mas’ when this topic arises.

“No mas, no mas,” Roberto told the referee.

“No more box.”

And he walked to his corner.

Now. As a boxer Roberto Duran was known as the most dedicated, intense warrior in the ring. His nickname was Hands of Stone <Manos de Piedra>. He was the lightweight champ and had lost only one decision in 72 bouts <orsomething close to that>. It was said that he never thought he could ever lose.

And, yet, he walked away in the middle of a fight. And in the win/loss column, he lost.

But.

Here is the deal.

“No mas” didn’t mean ‘I quit.’ It just meant ‘fuck this.’

It was purely a comment made in disgust. Yup. Duran wasn’t hurt … he was just disgusted. Once Duran realized Leonard wouldn’t play ‘quien es mas macho’he just walked away.

Winning, if he couldn’t fight the way he thought a fight should be fought, just wasn’t a fight to him.

Was he right or wrong? Shit. I do not know.

In his head … right.

In may other people’s heads? Wrong decision. It made him a quitter in their eyes and a loser in the win/loss column.

But this is all about winning the way you want to win.

Duran was the champ. He probably was smart enough to figure out a way to win the way Sugar Ray was fighting the fight <which wasn’t fighting, it was avoiding>, but that wasn’t the win he wanted.

He wanted to know who the best fighter was.

He wanted to be hit and see if he could take it.

He wanted to see if Sugar Ray could take his best hits.

When Sugar Ray decided he wasn’t going to allow that to happen Duran just said … not only do I not want to play this game but I don’t want to win this way … “no mas.”

Don’t judge that example, just ponder it a bit.

Now. To us <because most of us are not world class boxers> we will all at some point have to make this same type of decision — in sports, in Life, in relationships, in business. We all have to decide how important how we win is to us.

This is where ‘winners win’ gets tricky. If all you care about is winning, how you win becomes subservient to the win itself.

Look. How you win, or play the game, is a very personal decision. It really ends up being your choice with regard to your attitude <which ultimately influences your own behavior even when that behavior is within a group or business organization>.

Oh. And when it isn’t your choice how to play <i.e., someone else is dictating how you play> … and you really do not want to play that way, well, there is trouble <in River City my friends>.

Ok. Please note I am going to make some generalizations soon to make some points and I fully understand there are degrees within each generalization.

Regardless. Let’s say there are three types of wins and winners:

A ‘whatever it takes to win’ win

An intellectual win

An ability win

And while this is probably relevant to Life, in general, as well as sports <obviously> and personal, I am going to discuss this idea in a business environment.

Why? Because I tend to believe this is one of the most difficult attitude & behavior decisions someone has to make in business.

Organizations ask, and demand, many things of you and you have to reconcile all of it with your own attitude and inevitably your actions <behavior>.

As a junior person this is very difficult to manage, but my suggestion is that you get things set <with the best knowledge you have> in your own head and then look to the leaders behavior. Watch the senior people and how they treat going after a win, the process in win decision making and then how they define & evaluate the win.

Make sure it matches up with what you have decided attitudinally. If you do not, you run the risk of being constantly put in positions where you do not like what you are not only being asked to do, but what you are doing.

Senior business people have no excuses.

No if, ands or buts. How they win defines them as a business person.

All I can say to them is, well, accept it <whichever type you are>. I know what I like in my head but that doesn’t make it the only right.

The only point I have to really make to leaders is that once you accept how you go after a win then begin recruiting people who think as you do. If you do not, then you will be forcing your attitudes & behavior upon others who probably do not want to, let alone like to, do it that way. And I can also promise you when it comes to evaluation time, as a leader, you will be continuously disappointed in their performance.

Anyway.

The three wins <my perspective> and how they are different aspects of ‘adept, adapt & adopt.”

A whatever it takes to win.

I actually refer to this as an empty win.

This is typically the type of win done by someone who says afterwards “all that matters is the result” or “it’s not the journey it is the destination” or “the ends justifies the means” or “winning is everything.” It is empty because the person runs a very large risk that how you actually got to the win is ignored and everything gets measured <in their personal character measurement> on a scorecard.

I admit.

I don’t like these types of wins.

But there is a personality type out there, and some very successful people, who take pride in how many checks are in the win column and could care less how they got to them.

To these people … all wins are quality wins because, well, it is a win, e.g., winners win.

Typically really competitive people fall into this group.

I call this “adept” winning. You compete because you are adept at reading what it takes to win and doing it.

This person isn’t adapting because they understand winning is about lining up the necessary variables each time so they aren’t adapting but rather simply building each time to win.

And they aren’t adopting anything because while some things can be reused it is mostly one time usage winning.

These types of winners are very difficult to replicate through training. And these types of winners have to be very careful in how far they will go to win.

They have bigger boundaries of accepted behavior because of the adept attitude … and because of that they can stray to the boundary margins of character.

But it is the win numbers in this group that is most satisfying.

Out of all three groups I have listed this one probably will chalk up the most quantity of wins in the end.

There is an intellectual win.

You truly outsmart someone <or outsmart the problem>. You out think or tear apart the challenge in such an innovative way that your competition can just look afterwards and say “wow … that was smart.”

This is as good as a physical <ability> win, but unfortunately many people do not evaluate it that way.

In fact many of the intellectual winners kind of wish they had some other tangible contribution because thinking is, well, intangible.

This type of winning is ‘adapt & adopt” winning.

You compete by adapting your thinking to the situation and adopting new ideas/thinking <its a contextual win>.

These types of winners I tend to believe are just born this way. Yes. Some aspects can be trained but these types of winners just seem to have an innate ability to see things, assess what matters versus what doesn’t matter, and assimilate the “what matters” information into either unique, or refreshingly different, ideas and thoughts.

This is a very satisfying win because you out thought someone.

An ability win.

This is ‘mano y mano.’ You bring your best and I will bring my best and let the best win.

Here is the deal. Sometimes your best isn’t the better. And you lose. Oh. But what a loss.

This one is near & dear to my heart.

And I admit that I got really really lucky early in my career in that I was encouraged to go for this kind of ‘no frills’ winning and use losses to make my best better so that each consecutive ‘game’ I was able to stay true to what I was good at and it got better and better. Maybe it was partially I was stubborn on my definition of best or maybe I figured out what I was good at <even if it wasn’t the best of the best … just good while still being my personal best> early on and figured that if this was what I was good at, well, then I would only rise as high as my ‘best’ would take me.

This type of continuous winning is “adopt & adapt” winning. You compete, learn, adopt some new skills <skill level or new skill> and then adapt within your existing skill set to the next challenge. This means your muscle group gets stronger and stronger <albeit it is just one muscle group>.

This type of win is extremely satisfying. I also envision this group has the lowest actual total wins. They are the highest quality wins just not a shitload of them.

Well. And that is the real differentiator in quality wins — how good you really are. And I guess that is going to be my point having used one of the best boxers of all time. He was one of the best.

“Manos de Piedra”, is true, Hands of Stone. Every punch, and I’m not exaggerating, every punch that he hit me with, from the body to the head, felt like bricks, stone, rocks”.

Sugar Ray Leonard

And not all of us are of that level of ‘best.’ In fact, not many people are. So you have to figure what is most important to you in the win.

The numbers?

The intellectual win?

The ability win?

Pick your poison and embrace that is what makes you, well, you in the business world.

Know when to say “no mas.”

Know when to say ‘fuck this.’

Look.

Do I give Sugar Ray credit for figuring out how to win by avoiding the Hands of Stone? Sure.

Would I have done it that way? Nope <and I probably would have lost>.

Do I give Duran credit for just saying ‘no mas’ after 8 frustrating rounds? Yup.

He was the champ. He cared more about how he won the championship than the championship itself. Now that, my friends, is a lesson that many of us should take to heart in business.

Figure out what you want, and how you want to do it, and find your place in the business world doing it. But please, please, stop saying “winners win” because losing doesn’t make you a non winner all the time.

“Above all, disagreement is needed to stimulate the imagination. One may not need imagination to find the one right solution to a problem. But then this is of value only in mathematics. In all matters of true uncertainty such as the executive deals with—whether his sphere be political, economic, social, or military—one needs creative solutions which create a new situation. And this means that one needs imagination—a new and different way of perceiving and understanding.”―

Peter F. Drucker

========================

“To live is to war with trolls.”

―

Henrik Ibsen

===========

Let me get the contrarian view out of the way – I believe conflict between people in business, in general, is good. I know that it is good when conflict is done well.

Conflict captures not only attention, but also captures interest. Even lurkers, uninvolved, follow along. It is here where conflict can vector out in a variety of ways. Simplistically there is an array of good vectors and an array of bad vectors. Within those vectors there are degrees of civility & incivility, vitriol & respectful discourse.

Conflict actually amplifies, and energizes, amplification. Therefore, conflict done well is dependent upon the vectors. Oh. And also in resolution – or lack of resolution. Without a resolution destination the combatants just face the challenge over & over & over. This is where conflict, used in misguided (or purposeful evil), can lead to the worst of the worst – conflict for conflict sake. Conflict with no interest in resolution. Open ended conflict. This is the worst type of conflict because it cocoons what already exists and doesn’t open up thinking to new things.

That said.

Let’s discuss attempting to have fruitful conflict. One that actually has a potential to enlighten.

Now.

I would note conflict has a silent combatant – Bias. Yeah. Everyone has personal bias. Let me highlight two ways of viewing bias.

There are mental closed portals.

“Constructivism” is a theory of learning, where the brain creates new mental models in order to handle new data and solve problems. In other words, learning is a creative act. So when you’re taking in new data, and your brain hasn’t created a new mental model to handle it yet, you are in a state of “disequilibrium”, a state of confusion. But the inverse is also true: When you’re in a state of disequilibrium, your brain is creating new models.”

GapingVoid

While we could discuss mental models for days let me just say Ideas are like marbles in the brain. They roll around but don’t get anywhere unless little doors open to let them funnel into a room to gather. In other words, most ideas are quite capable of exploring corners in the mind – if you let them (its up to you to open the little doors). Bias are the closed doors. I always hesitate to call the mind a maze because I actually think its more like a house with hallways, doors, rooms, closets and, yes, even bathrooms.

Recognizing the mental closed portals leads to attempts to master the art of ‘self idea management.’ In the context of conflict <wherein the ideas in your head are being discussed externally> I would suggest people will bring up 2 thoughts: psychological safety & criticism

Psychological safety

I’m a firm believer in psychological safety (i’ve always called it ‘being dauntless in business”) but the true power in business is harnessing the potential within unique individuals toward a common vision/goal/purpose. that’s collaboration & it isn’t. its uneven managed.

i would agree that psychological safety increases the likelihood, but, would not automatically enable. it takes a confluence of factors to maximize potential of which psychological safety is a key component. it is what i would consider a structural factor.

i’m not a psychologist, just a business person. i sometimes believe we approach this from the wrong direction. we treat collaboration as some synergistic well aligned blob of progress. reality is collaboration is conflict done well. conflicting ideas sparking ideas/doing.

Criticism

I have a love/hate relationship with the topic of criticism as associated with positive conflict. Its hard to imagine ideas being debated, the thinking & the actual doing part, without the idea sustaining soe criticism. Yet. I, personally, have never associated criticism with idea debates. To me debates are debates and criticism is criticism. Regardless. conflict, well done, will incorporate some criticism at some point and we shouldn’t associate ‘negative’ with ‘criticism.’ No criticism allows us to float on the superficial surface and ideas need to explore depths. Will criticism always be done well? No, of course not. So we should eliminate it so everyone doesn’t have to suffer through shitty criticism? No, of course not. Look. If you accept the concept of positive conflict you have to accept that criticism is a tool within the environment. Period.

And then there are societal/cultural closed portals.

What do I mean? I think I read somewhere that less than 10% of all counties in the USA are actual “battleground” counties in an election. What that means is about 90+% of counties in the USA contain a general group of likeminded people. This becomes important because one-on-one enlightened conflict is a duel of ideas & thinking. However, if one of the ones is surrounded by a tribe who is countering any new thought with existing thought/bias enlightenment faces a multidimensional maze of hallways with stubborn warped doors serving as obstacles to attain an objective of “thinking in a new way.” Residence can define ideas & ideals. What I mean by that is the greater intangible idea, & ideal, gets defined more by a where the physically live & who surrounds them at the corner of the bar, the church, the barbeque & the school board meeting. That is a societal closed portal.

Anyway.

I will say that most people who discuss conflict done well approach it incorrectly. They have an idea, usually based or grounded in an insight, and then believe if they can articulate the insight wekll that the idea will win the day. Nope. Not gonna work. The insight might get you in the game but conflict done well needs some traction, some believability, some actionable proof.

Many years of innovation work have shown me that insights are not enough. In fact, they are fairly worthless on their own. Insights have little intrinsic value without being transformed into frameworks and narratives that can drive strategic action.

The best part is when you realize the value is not in the insight itself but what can be done with it. A good insight can inspire unique frameworks, narratives, and actions appropriate for very different challenges and opportunities.

==

This leads me back to conflict, if you agree ideas are the desired outcome, then, unfortunately, there is a ‘middle man’ in this transaction – the insight. The enabler of the eventual outcome is some insight and, unfortunately, insights are not all created equal and that’s why ideas need some aspect of real ‘doing’ or action for people to get onboard. In other words, ideas don’t sell themselves, only ideas-to-action sell themselves.

Regardless. I think this whole topic is important. Important because as individuals become more isolated, and business, society & politics seem intent on encouraging isolation <us versus them narratives>, we need to become more intentional with regard to admitting there is conflict AND addressing that conflict in an enlightened way.

This doesn’t mean being a jerk nor does it mean scaring the shit out of people into accepting your idea <this would be the balance between psychological safety and criticism management>. Ideas get honed thru conflict. Conversely, ideas borne of no conflict are, well, not really ideas, they are simply thoughts doomed to deflate in the reality of action. The world needs ideas and needs conflict well done.

<originally posted July 2017 & reposted as I ponder lessons from the Mueller Report>

==============

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

—

Steve Maraboli

=============

“You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are.”

—–

William Chapman

=============

…. Trump attitude toward “playing the game of Life ” …..

Yeah. I have to comment on Donald Jr agreeing to meet with someone who clearly stated they were part of a Russian initiative to support Trump and may have information <illegally gained or legally gained?> to sink Hillary Clinton.

I have to comment because this, to me, in a nutshell captures the essence of what Trump represents and what we in America need to think about as part of a soul searching exercise.

From my standpoint it boils down to one question of what is more important to Americans — a) being legally correct <or just okay> or <b> being morally okay.

Trump ran a ‘win at any cost/no rules’ campaign <which is exactly how he runs his business> and … well … we Americans need to decide whether this represents who and what we are. I say that because it seems like we continuously miss the bigger issue as we turn ourselves into pretzels either trying to prove some criminal guilt or, conversely, prove criminal innocence.

While that is important from a legal standpoint America has never stood for “playing within the fringes of the rules” <let alone ‘no rules’>.

Sure. Some do, but 90+% of Americans abhor people who win by some technicality or skate by on some cringe worthy fringe legal basis.

I would suggest people think about this Trump Jr. meeting in one of these ways:

Someone steals a test and offers it to your high school child <and I believe West Point has a clear point of view on this>

Someone steals private photos off someone’s phone and posts them online <or offers to sell them to you exclusively>

Someone steals the other high school team’s game plan and offers it to you before the game <and you tell your players how you got it?>

Or how about this one for adults …

Someone steals a patented process from some company and they offer to give it to you so they lose their exclusivity <and you can compete directly> — note: this is against the law

Let me be clear.

Sure. It happens in the business world. We do some crappy shit on occasion. Mostly we do it behind closed doors and don’t tell anyone because we know it is either legally suspect and absolutely morally an embarrassment.

We certainly do not go home and sit our children down at the dinner table and say “this is the right way to do it.”

My point is that “winning” is not just about that moment in time, that game and that competition. It has ripples in which our youth watches, learns and decides how they want to play the game for the rest of their Life.

It is absurd to believe “I won” justifies all behavior. Most Americans know this in their hearts if not their souls.

I personally think the Trump clan is free of any morals and just think in terms of power and in terms of making deals for their own financial benefit, not to serve the country’s strategic interests, and the win is all that matters <at any cost and in any way>.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools, but I loathe the absence of integrity, dignity and, in general, their inability <or, incapability> to win by playing by the rules.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools, but I loathe the fact they believe their hollow way of conducting themselves will make America great again <and all it will do is make it hollow>.

That said.

I have debated what makes America exceptional, or great, with dozens and dozens of people. Most find it either odd, or interesting, in that while I acknowledge morality and freedoms and democracy I tend to focus more on a pragmatic aspect – how you play the game of Life & business in America.Or maybe I could call it “freedom to win” because in America we foster a belief that how you win matters, therefore, anyone can win.

The corollary to that thought is when something becomes “rigged” that translates into “some people are not playing the game the American way” therefore we get angry. I argue it this way because … well … it is a simplistic idea, easy to grasp, for an everyday schmuck like me and I tend to believe most of us every day schmucks don’t want to be too philosophical or intellectual.

By the way. My belief in this American identity isn’t something I just pulled out of my ass.

The most pragmatic truth about America and its identity is that America’s founding fathers wanted to do shit <Just Do It>. And they realized that if the country offered everyone the opportunity to do shit, and as much doing as they could, the country itself would prosper … and everyone would prosper in their “pursuit of happiness” <which is inevitably grounded in some vision of doing some shit>.

In order to create this equal opportunity to ‘do’ within the “we the people” they established the American way to play the game. In this game we could choose captains and coaches if we wanted, but the foundation was that on day one anyone could become a captain or coach if they wanted or they could just pursue happiness of doing shit however they wanted <within legal & moral boundaries>.

Rigid constitutionalists will most likely hate what I am going to say next but, to me, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were developed as kind of our league’s rules of the game & engagement. Not to be taken literally but to establish a foundation from which all the players and teams could compete fairly.

I would note here that whether you like the way I am saying this or not … if I were a betting man I would put a lot of money on the belief the everyday schmuck would be more likely to ‘get’ this than all the politicians blathering about rights & privileges & constitutionally legal intellectual mumbo jumbo.

To be clear. Trump doesn’t believe this nor do I believe he would even understand half this shit I just typed, but he would instinctually abhor the idea as he is the ultimate spokesperson for “win at any cost.”

I believe there needs to be a counterbalance to the Trump “just win” megaphone and there needs to be a voice of clarity for “how you win matters is not just a theoretical discussion but it is actually a pragmatic discussion of what is at the core of who and what America is” not as anti-Trump, but to pose the challenge to America.

We need to frame the narrative as a discussion which becomes the foundation in every home, business, government and playing field – the American identity. But, in my eyes, we shouldn’t do this discussion just under moral imperatives or “what is right thing to do”, but do it in the cultural identity of America which is “doing.” To me it is the intellectual spin of Trump’s dumbed down version of the discussion. Trump talks wins but we should be talking about how we win because it gets to the idea of who and what America is and not simply results and ‘doing outcomes.’

What Trump doesn’t understand is that America is an idea and not a bunch of transactions. He believes if he can create enough ‘positive transactions’ that people will view him as a success, and America as a success, because the balance sheet will say “success.” This treats America like a commodity with no ‘value’ <which, by the way, is not an expression of exceptionalism just ‘exceptional doers’>.

America is not a bunch of transactions and jobs, America is an idea. And, to me, that idea is “winning the right way.”

The American identity has always been about doing shit the right way and winning the right way.

That is our sweet spot and it defines how we think we are exceptional <at least to the nonintellectual everyday schmucks like me>.

We are forgiving, slightly, to those who win on some technicality or ‘technically legal’ thing, but, even then, we debate whether it was winning by being smarter … or by ‘cheating’ in some way.

Regardless … this debate inevitably ends with a general feeling that the win “just wasn’t completely right’ <or … “it wasn’t a good win”>.

You can get away with this on occasion.

Someone who always wins on technicalities or does shit always just within what could be construed as legal is always a “shady winner” or someone “gaming the system.” We don’t like these people.

And then, of course, there are others who play by non – American rules. They win on occasion, but it is only because they couldn’t win by playing by our rules and within our behavioral boundaries.

That is who and what we are and Trump is challenging that.

I believe we would all benefit from this debate.

No.

I KNOW we would all benefit from this debate.

Everyone.

I admit. I am banking on the fact Trump loses in this debate and Republicans and Democrats will win by having the debate <and therefore America wins>.

To be clear. This is not about moral superiority but rather digs deep into the ‘code of who and what America is.’ We are the “just do it” country <I encourage everyone to pick up Clotairre Rapaille’s “The Culture Code”, avoid the wacky aspects and hunker down on the insightful parts>. We are impatient, we like to do and we are perpetually dissatisfied. And, yet, all that said any exceptionalism we may have resides in HOW we do shit. In our heart of hearts we know that anyone can ‘do’, but Americans ‘do it the right way’ therefore our outcomes, our work and our ‘wins’ are better and more exceptional because we do them the right way.

That said. We forget this, just as any sports team who hasn’t won a frickin game in forever, when some asshat comes along and says we are losers and we need to do whatever it takes to win.

But ‘just win’ goes counter to what any high school football coach teaches his team, what any parent teaches their kid, what every general instills in their soldiers, what every good business leader cultivates within their organization … we recognize that in the end wins are hollow if we haven’t played the game right, it was fair and we didn’t cheat <or lower ourselves to the way cheaters and assholes play>. We play tough, we will always be competitive and we will ‘do’ and win ON OUR TERMS.

Trump encourages us to let others define America’s terms.

What an asshat.

America’s wins should be better than everyone else’s wins because we are the shining light on the hill for an impatient, doing, perpetually dissatisfied way of winning the right way.

That said <to look thru a political lens>, to me, “How you play the game, and win, matters” <or, “winning at any cost is not American”> is an effective framing of American identity which puts Republicans at a disadvantage because they will get trapped between what they want to say <and what I imagine many of them truly believe> and Trump. I also think it provides Democrats an easy way to reframe what Trump wants to do but because he is too stupid they can frame it in a way that appeals to tangible outcomes, results, programs & policies rather than simple platitudes.

For example.

Trump is too stupid to realize that he could talk about healthcare in economic terms instead of getting into that wretched ‘is healthcare a right or a privilege’ discussion. America is an economic engine. And as any business owner will tell you the more days healthy happy employees are at work the more productive they are <and the more productive the company is>. Business owners would kill to limit absenteeism and increase productivity when an employee is at work.

The day I can get all 180 employees, or 18, at work, 100% healthy, is the day my business is most productive.

That is what healthcare does. Extrapolate that out to America itself. The day I can get 180 million working people at work, 100% healthy, is the day that America is at its most productive. While healthcare is certainly a moral issue it is also an economic productivity issue. If everyone in America is healthy, than our economy is healthy. Frame the discussion this way and it gets us stop talking about ‘mean’ and ‘cruel’ and start talking benefits. This is an excellent example of insuring that everyone in America has a chance to win by playing the game the right way <and insuring someone doesn’t win simply because of a technicality>.

Beyond that one example, how you play the game matters extends into education, opportunity in general, how government conducts itself, the military, well, someone smarter than I can bring the idea to Life in any tactical & policy discussion you want.

This idea also plays into an overall theme of “u pluribus unim”. If we all have opportunities, maximize our potential by playing the game right when given an opportunity and working hard, the many ‘ones’ doing it the right way means “the one” <America> is great <or exceptional>. Therefore “Great” is defined not by some nebulous Trumpism but rather by something anyone and everyone can do, talk about and judge others by <and Trump will inevitably judged harshly on this standard>.

Uhm.

This is not anti Trump but rather “look, we are talking about a lot of transactions and tactics and jobs and policies and programs not a lot about how we should go about doing it so that everyone has a chance of winning.”

This is not an anti-Trump position. This is a “decide who you want to be America and judge your leaders based on who you want to be” message. We need this discussion and debate. I worry that the soul of America is under attack and I am banking on the fact what is right can beat what is wrong as long as they both enter the playing field – someone just needs to bring them both there.

Yeah.

I think this discussion would create dinner table, hallway and classroom discussion for months to come. And I think this is the kind of discussion with moms, dads, teachers, coaches, programmers, blue collar workers, students, etc.

Anyway.

Trump Jr behavior, which I think is indicative of Trump Sr behavior, reminded me once again that HOW we do shit matters. This is about norms, and normal behavior, versus simple legality.

We set out explicit rules and guidelines and sometimes these appear as laws.

They are meant to showcase a red line for behavior.

And, boy oh boy … we sure do bitch about how many laws we have and how many regulations are in place and how many rules we face that curb our success. The government is most likely the main villain in this story.

Sadly, most of us act like government sits around coming up with rules and laws and regulations simply to stifle freedom in our lives – personal and business.

It may behoove us to think a little more about why those rules , regulations and laws came about and how we still have some room to navigate that which is a fairly large playing field called “norms.”

Norms, in my pea like brain, reside inside a buffer zone which lies in the area just prior to reaching one of these red lines. They are usually unstated and they are usually simply expected for those who uphold some integrity and they are usually just done by people who have some inner sense of ‘right.’ Trump reminds me of some people who I have worked with who have constantly suggested “but it is legal.” And, 90% of the time, I have felt uneasy about what we were about to do. Not that it was illegal but rather it <a> tested what I would consider a norm and <b> it was clearly in that buffer zone that got too close to the red line.

Yeah. There will always be people who will dance on the icy brink of the red line and these same people will dance while singing “it is legal.”

It is a hollow song to sing.

Let’s just say there are two basic types of people:

Those who see norms, and normative behavior, and see it as guidelines for right or wrong <and subsequently check laws, rules and regulations to be sure all is good & legal>. In other words behavior doesn’t have to be dictated by some rule or law but more often than not “what seem like the right thing to do.”

Those who see “anything that could be deemed legal”, or, conversely, “if it is not expressly forbidden than it is permissible”. These people don’t ever ponder “what seems like the right thing to do” because, to them, if it is legal it is right. In other words … if bad actions do not amount to crimes than it is good enough to do to earn a win/reward.

……… choose to be strong …

That is actually the choice America needs to make with regard to its identity – which represents who and what we are.

This is a moment. A moment for America to look in the mirror and decide what kind of person they want to be.

All I know is I do not want to look in the mirror and see Donald Trump Jr. looking back at me.

All I know is I do not want to look in the mirror and see Donald Trump Sr. looking back at me.

But that’s me.

Everyone needs to make their own decision … I just think someone needs to stand up and tell everyone “now is the time we all need to look in the mirror.”

“The most successful organizations in the world are the ones who work together, play together, and get messy together.”

=

Jeanne Malnati

——————–

Well.

This may sound a little wacky but 98.2% of successful businesses are successful because, uhm, there is some conflict <note: I made up the 98.2% but you get the point>.

Suffice it to say conflict, in and of itself, doesn’t make them successful. It is that the conflict tends to create the positive friction which sparks better thinking, better ideas and a better company — in other words — a more enlightened organization.

I often argue that conflict within an organization is natural … and healthy. Conflict is natural because while organizations try and create some ‘tidiness’ to the institution itself … the people within are messy. Inherent in this messiness is a clashing of certainty & uncertainty, known & unknown, learning & unlearning and all the messy things thinking people do when all are aimed toward a greater vision, purpose & objective.

We often like to talk about business as ‘rational’, effective within organizational constructs and boundaries of behavior & rules, but, c’mon, Life itself is pretty messy — outcomes may be uncertain and people, particularly in business, can certainly be irrational <at times>. In addition, truth itself is messy. I mention that because if there is one thing every business seeks in their pursuit of success, it is ‘truth’ with regard to “what do we need to do.”

Regardless. It is quite possible the messiest part of any business is found in the simple objective of getting good shit done. It’s mostly messy because, once again, people are messy.

Messy in terms of how we interact.

Messy in terms of not knowing what we are good at … and sometimes not standing up for what we really are good at.

Messy in terms of inconsistent communication.

Messy in terms of selective listening.

Messy in terms of … well … our attempts to avoiding conflict <we can turn ourselves into pretzels trying to keep things as smooth as possible>.

Now. That may sound like a shitload of messiness, but it is simply a natural state of things — people, once again, naturally make business messy.

Oh. Even people with good intentions are messy.

Yes. Even good people.

Throughout my business career:

I have enjoyed a “force of nature” person who has forced enlightenment for the force of good.

I have endured a force of nature person with good intentions …with less than good behavior … who has forced us to face enlightenment.

I have encountered an essential force of good within a business … who doesn’t have the ‘nature’ part of the ‘force’ DNA … but is still an essential undercurrent force with which the business prospers by enabling enlightenment.

And the entire experience has emboldened me with a sense that even good organizations with good products and good people and a good idea can be messy AND enlightened AND be a force of good.

Yeah. Sure. I have also seen how messiness can negatively encroach into the good fiber of a business with bad conflict. But the one thing I can guarantee is messiness with good conflict will lead to enlightenment. It is just that I cannot guarantee whether it will be enlightenment used for the force of good or enlightenment used for the force of, well, something less than good.

Regardless.

All this messiness leads to Enlightened conflict. Enlightened Conflict is a term I often use <heck … it is the name of my site>. To me it has multiple dimensions of relevance to not only to what I believe & what I believe should be done, but what research shows creates a smarter thinking individual <and individuals> and, inevitably, a smarter version of collaboration <one driven to sharpen ideas rather than compromise on dull mediocrity>.

So.

A lot of people push back on the “conflict” part. Here’s the basic idea. The more someone understands <or is less ignorant> the more respectful the “conflict” will be. Conflict can be debate, discussion or simply when two people have different points of view on things. It’s the basic thesis being challenged, navigating a crisis <the conflict>, antithesis all ultimately arriving at some synthesis. Its not a novel idea nor a contentious idea. But it IS an idea which empowers a business. Unfortunately, it is also an idea which many people suggest creates negativity.

Anyway. The positive side of enlightened conflict resides in the sharing of information so that people just know more. And I would hope <and actually believe> they use that additional “know more” <knowledge of some type> so they can make better informed choices. Conversely … I could suggest that the enemy of ignorance is enlightened conflict. I often suggest people think about that because I could argue <and I do> that one of the biggest obstacles to any progress, in business & in Life, is ignorance.

Well. The one thing I can guarantee is that Enlightened conflict aggressively attacks ignorance. Therefore, any business with an enlightened conflict future will inevitably have smarter discussions, more respectful competition between employees <and better teamwork>, become more informed and, ultimately, create better decisions. And, maybe best of all, in their own way the business organization itself <model, organizational structure & roles/responsibilities definitions> becomes more enlightened.

Look. When I speak of enlightened conflict with businesses I am relentless with regard to my belief that little actions can make a big difference. I do that because I believe as long as you empower individuals to embrace enlightened conflict, and respectful conflict, you empower everyone to believe they are all architects of life … and fate.

All that said. I admit. I, personally, love a great debate and I typically feast on partially ignorant point of views. I am not that smart but I can spot a generalization or a sweeping judgment a mile away. I am kind of like a vulture lurking over ignorance seeking to swoop down for the debate.

It also helps that I am a curious vulture. I like to think and lurk over a variety of topics. On a separate note I am biased in that I believe businesses, and society, would be a better version of its current form if there were more curious vultures.

To conclude.

At least I have admitted being a vulture. Don’t let that stop you from loving the idea of Enlightened Conflict.

Life, and business, is messy. I would argue the only way to attempt to find a path through the messiness is to wade into the conflict, embrace your enlightenment throughout the engagement and, well, make whatever you can a little less messy.

“The world is too big and too intricate to conform to our ideas of what it should be like.

Just because we invent myths and theories to explain away the chaos we’re still going to live in a world that’s older and more complicated than we’ll ever understand.”

————

Moby

===========

“The World is a very complex system.

It is easy to have too simple a view of it, and it is easy to do harm and to make things worse under the impulse to do good and make things better.”

—-

Kenneth Boulding

==========

Well. Today, while reading some trite business fortune cookie wisdom pulled from some gazzillion selling business book, I thought of the day I said “I worry we are killing the next generation of business thinkers with simplistic tripe” to a famous internationally renowned business book author. I did it at while on a panel at some convention. I said it <after holding my thoughts for too long> as I listened to simplistic soundbite advice being shared under the guise of “sage wisdom to enhance everyone’s success.”

I followed my statement with …

“Business is messy. Business is complex. It seems to me that those of us who have navigated the messiness have a responsibility to not undersell the messiness & complexity nor oversell simplicity.” <Me>

Needless to say … it wasn’t one of my more popular moments.

Needless to say … it was one of my better professional moments.

Ok. Business is made up of a mixture of skills, personalities and attitudes. Success is most often dictated by alignment of skills, personalities and attitudes, or, some special mix of all. It is that mix, or blend, of all those things which is well, frankly, an absolute bitch to make happen.

That said. Let me point out three reasons why business is such a difficult complex unwieldy thing and trite soundbite wisdom rarely helps:

Building a successful business is rarely about some wide open “white space” awaiting your arrival.

People … you almost always have to incorporate people into your evil plan for success <and those who most desperately desire to help most often have their own evil plans for success>

Dealing with what you have is significantly different than creating what you want <and how the initial recipe is different than the ongoing recipe>

Let me explain each.

The white space myth:

Business success, generally speaking, comes down to one of two things (a) am I going to build a market for my idea, or (b) am I going to steal some of the existing market for my idea. Needless to say neither of those sits in some dormant white space awaiting your presence.

You either create white space by elbowing some asshats out of your way or simply walk through the front door of the homes of others and steal all their shit <that was a metaphor … you do not really do that>. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and be different or offer some unique aspects <if you can> but more often than not it is all about being sure you are distinct, be relentlessly persistent in communicating your distinctness … and offer something that delivers value after it is purchased.

Uhm. No trite soundbites there and I have pretty much told you everything you need to know.

People who want to help <but you shouldn’t let them>:

Help is always available. And self proclaimed ‘disruptive/innovative’ help almost even more so. Pick a topic and go online. I can almost guarantee you will get over a million results <you actually get 31.8 million in .59 seconds> of people discussing “disruptive” ideas to facilitate progress. Many of those people are for hire. The majority are smart, articulate and have boundless energy, uhm, for their version of progress.

Finding people who assist in forwarding the progress of your idea is, frankly, not easy <although it seems like it should be>. Even more difficult is incorporating change agents or what we far too often call disrupters. It is challenging … tempting for sure … but challenging.

Soundbite experts will throw out a gazillion people management thoughts on ‘center everyone on the purpose’ and a shitload of ‘horizon direction focus’ thinking … but I gotta tell ya. I can put the biggest fucking beautiful target up on the wall to aim for but if the people I got cannot, and will not, shoot arrows at it — the target is a beautiful piece of art on the wall and nothin’ else.

Deals and creation:

Soundbite advisors spend a shitload of their energy on ‘bringing your idea to life.’ Not a whole shitload of them invest a lot of energy discussing “what do I do once it is actually breathing.” In other words … what the hell do I do with this Frankenstein?

Huh? What experts neglect to tell you is that all that fine planning and smart implementation rarely ends up creating exactly what you intended creating in the beginning. You will naturally adapt to some things and course correct the best you can as you navigate survival.

At its most basic creating is about making some deals, and dealing with, reality as it gets thrown in your face and at your feet <this means you can trip over a shitload of things>. Some people call this “adapting”, I do not, I call it deal making with the world. Maybe think of creating business like striking a nuclear arms-control agreement. Simplistically the deal is the means, not the end itself, and success simply means everyone keeps their nukes they just don’t use them. But the real point is that business is rarely developed with “dealing” central to success. It is more often the idea <which motivates the energy and company/business>. Deals are simply the way you protect the business idea. What soundbite is there for how to navigate the typical business idea of “mutually beneficial transactions?”

There is none.

You deal with … well … dealing one by one the best you can all the while trying to not lose sight of the desired objective <which can be covered in a deep fog on occasion>.

Anyway.

The next generation of business leaders deserve experienced people who attempt to explain complexity rather than serve up trite simplistic soundbites which over time simply amount to a steaming pile of bullshit. While I have a bunch of concerns with regard to what we are, and are not, teaching the next generation of business thinkers the one I am mostly concerned with resides in the simplistic shit shared by multimillion dollar business authors and the hundreds of books you can buy which all offer “simplistic advice for business success.”

There is absolutely nothing simple about business. Misrepresenting reality, the business truth, should be called out and chastised even if it is some high falutin’ author of famous business books. We owe it to the next generation of thinkers to teach the complex and not some trite soundbites. That is, as I mentioned earlier, the deal we need to make with the reality of the business future.

I don’t really believe in fate. And it appears good ole HW Longfellow didn’t believe in it either. He wrote a beautiful poem called The Builders (see below) suggesting that we, the people, are architects of fate.

In fact.

The beauty of what he writes (and this is a truly awesome thought) is that everyone does something, no matter how small or how large, that builds the structure of life. Yes. Every one of us, each and every one, plays some role in constructing the great construct of Life we all live in. That is a really nice thought. And a nice reminder that no matter how inconsequential we may feel or the things we do we play a part in the tapestry of life.

Now.

This is also true in business. I say that as a business guy with a long history in the service side of the business world.

The side of the world that you often feel helpless, often having to react, and often being forced to move about at the whim of someone else, and often feeling like you are not really doing anything important (because it is hard to see how what you are doing really matters).

Having said that and knowing that a lot of people really do feel this way I pull Architects of Fate out of my backpack. I use this poem several times with companies to remind us, employees, that all our actions have consequences. Yes. Even the smallest actions.

Longfellow’s words should encourage everyone to believe each action contributes to the structure of who we are as a company and what we do. Now THAT is a valuable thought in every organizational behavior or culture sense. It is an even more important valuable thought a leader should have (because if they do they will inevitably encourage all employee to feel that way).

And when everything is aligned. When everyone believes they can be an architect. It becomes a valuable thought in encouraging each employee to understand that their actions contribute to the architecture of the fate of the organization (no matter how inconsequential they may actually feel buried down in the mailroom or the bottomless pit of account receivables department or the office manager ordering heavy stock paper for the copier because someone is bitching).

I would also point out the practical side – productivity & output. It was my good friend Luke Sullivan who pointed this out in his book “hey whipple squeeze this” – thinking & creating matters but if there is no output there is no satisfaction. Real work. Actual things we do for customers or actions we take in front of customers. Each of these actions is a part of the overall tapestry of the architecture of the company. He also points out that each action often begets another action (in that once you have done something once it begins to feel more ‘okay’ to do it again … I would call that a slippery slope discussion).

Anyway.

As we hustle our way through each day trying to make sure we cross off everything on our to do lists and make our bosses happy and answer customer’s questions and requests it is good to remind ourselves we are truly architects of fate. It is good to remind people tht everything they do contributes to the grater architecture of what is and, maybe most importantly, what will be.

This pertains to your job, personal lie and the greater Life in general.

“Anyone who believes that we’re just going to leap into some sort of glorious new age is very unrealistic … far-reaching turmoil can be expected, as individuals and institutions either adapt to, or resist, change.”

=========

So.

Leadership is a tricky thing. It is walking a fine line of truth (grounded in what is real as well as ‘not lying’) and aspirational (giving people a glimpse of what they can be).

And, as with anything, this is about some functional practical things and emotional soul searching things.

Oh.

And connecting them. It is the connection aspect that great leaders do well. But, ultimately, those leaders who figure it out end up leading high energy, high performance organizations. I tend to believe when you see an organization that ‘thinks small’ (or acts small) it is because their leaders do.

Regardless.

Just as I wrote recently about the fact we are in the ‘selling hope’ business I tend to believe great organizational cultures are also grounded on hope. Hope for being better. Being a better person. Being better at what you may do daily (even the smallest task). Being part of something that betters the world. Great organizations, at their core, feed their people’s hope. And great leaders figure out a way of showing them that hope.

In practical terms and aspirational terms.

All that said … leads to me to some words that made me think about this.

Sam Meek. Sam was the CEO of of the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson in the 50’s/60’s. And the words below were delivered in a 1965 speech. Within the following words there are little scraps of hope littered throughout for people to pick and choose from.

Scraps of the practical.

Scraps of aspirational.

Scraps of lessons that can be implemented daily in actions.

All littered on a ground of a solid attitude focused on the horizon.

These are words that make you feel good about being part of the organization and yet words to challenge every one to be better and work harder (“we are a permanently dissatisfied company”). I am not above stealing great words and reapplying them. I use these words all the time and, frankly, I seek to work within organizations that like these words:

===

When I talk of this company, I am not thinking just of a legal or business entity. I am using the word in the older sense, as in a company of scholars, as a company of adventurers, or a company of voyagers. I think our companionship partakes of all these things.

There had to be something special about this enterprise to attract the talented and venturesome people who have come together to exercise their considerable talents and to derive from it the things that make for full and satisfying life.

Our relationships are subtle and highly sensitive relationships ….

Our job must be to share authority without losing it …

The whole staff must have a proprietary feeling about the company’s work.

We are a permanently dissatisfied company and so far as I can see, we shall not run out of things to be dissatisfied about. I think our work, in most instances, is the best of its kind in the world – and yet not good enough. Not as good as it is going to be. There has not been and there should never be a year when it is not better than the year before.

Our audience is getting more demanding all the time – it is not a question of talking down to them. The problem, the opportunity, is to talk far enough up to them.

===

Lastly.

I use one line from what Meeks said over and over again. I am not sure I have ever seen nor heard words from a leader that captured the essence of both functional practical and aspirational better than these:

“We must be dynamic for purposes bigger than ourselves.“

I admit. I absolutely hate when an organization “thinks small.” That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t think practical but they should think about impact. What kind of impact, or imprint, do they truly want to make. And I don’t necessarily mean making people’s lives better. I mean ‘doing good or great shit.’ Making an impact through what they do and who they are as an organization. Impacting whatever world they affect. It doesn’t have to be global (like a JWT) but it can be local or even within their own circle of friends & business relationships.

Creating a great organization, a company of adventures, needs leaders who say, who mean, who live, these types of words.

And all words that are said within a truth that it isn’t rhetoric but rather it is the soul of the organization.

Be dynamic.

Whew.

That alone is a great thought. A great thought for an individual, a leader and even an organization. I admit I often struggle with the current focus on “purpose driven” organizations but I never struggle with “dynamic.”

“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

—————

Abraham Lincoln

=====================

“Most of us don’t mind doing what we ought to do when it doesn’t interfere with what we want to do, but it takes discipline and maturity to do what we ought to do whether we want to or not.“

———–

Joseph B. Wirthlin

====================

Ok.

Just to finish off my thoughts <and frustrations > with regard to Trump’s lack of leadership and the NFL <and pettiness with Steph Curry “dis-invite” of someone who wasn’t going anyway> I wanted to point out just one more incredibly disturbing behavior he continues to exhibit – picking winners & losers with individual businesses.

It seems like he has forgotten he is no longer a faux business person, when he could tweet out absurd faux business statements about other real businesses and business people, and that he is now a faux president where he is not supposed to tell businesses how to be run, what an industry should or should not do and call out individual people like he is calling out to the guy who always finds a way to lose to him on the golf course whenever he walks through Mar a Lago’s front door.

Presidents don’t pick business winners and losers.

Presidents don’t tell people how to conduct their business.

Governments establish laws, rules & regulations within which individual businesses, industries and people work within. HOW they work within those guidelines is up to them.

In fact.

Even if a president has some business experience it doesn’t matter how they ran their business, how they believe a business should be run or how they believe specific demands upon organizational behavior should be dictated … it does not matter what he or she thinks.

Businesses are enterprises permitted to run their business independent of government ‘input.’ It is the right of any business to conduct themselves, legally, the way they choose.

I say that because lost in the racial and faux patriotism aspects of the Trump versus NFL <black athletes> mosh pit is the basic fact he interfered in the way an entire business conducts their business.

“I think NFL team owners should fire the son of a bitches.”

First.

No business owner calls the employees sonofabitches.

If they do they get fired.

Second.

I have run businesses. No one tells me who I can, or cannot, fire.

No one.

Third.

I have run businesses. No one tells me how my employees should conduct themselves and what they can, or cannot do,

No one.

Fourth.

“You should boycott the games <do not attend or watch>.”

Uhm.

So … the president suggested Americans should not support American business.

That’s the bottom line.

Gussy that up any way you would like but … that’s it.

Do not spend you money on American business.

At some point I am sure some Trump administration spokesperson can turn themselves into a pretzel telling me how wrong I am to think and say that … but … uhm … the American president told American people that because American businesses were not doing what he believes is the American way of conducting business that American people should no longer support specific American businesses.

What an asshole.

What a fucked up version of an American First business ideology.

I imagine my larger point is that since Trump was elected he has called out specific companies and industries … and even specific people … all under the guise of “here is what I believe is good or bad.”

<i imagine any Republican/conservative reading this just gagged a little>

By the way … this forces those businesses, industries and individuals to have to spend unplanned money attempting to respond to the highest office in the country.

He is the president. Presidents don’t pick business winners and losers.

Whether you like, or dislike, what the president has said about the NFL it is coming with a cost.

Saturday morning coaches, owners and players thought the game plan was the most important thing. By late Saturday morning PR teams, business owners conference calls, team captains, and players were all geared up trying to figure out what to do and how to respond.

Business as usual was interrupted.

We may think football is game … but it is a business to these people and it is a job.

Trump interfered with people’s business, careers and livelihoods.

In business words have repercussions.

…….. Trump’s affect on business by interfering ……….

But Trump doesn’t think beyond the moment and the soundbite and the audience.

He is one of those assholes he just lets others clean up the mess he leaves behind and justifies all his shit by saying shit like “I am just saying what everyone is thinking” … not realizing that most business entities kind of build a system to accommodate ‘the shit’ so when someone comes along and topples the system … well … you have to invest energy, time and money rebuilding a new system to accommodate new shit.

There are dozens of real stupid leadership things about trump that drive me nuts. But this one is actually different. This is a lack of understanding of the roles & responsibilities of being a president.

You don’t pick winners and losers.

You don’t tell someone how to run their business.

You don’t tell someone who to fire and who to not fire.

Basically.

This weekend should remind Donald J Trump that he shouldn’t interfere with anything in the Constitution <free speech> and shouldn’t interfere in American business.

I would be furious if I were an NFL owner or head coach.

Furious.

I would be nervous if I were a business CEO or business leader.

Very nervous.

Trump has no idea how to be a president nor how to conduct himself as a president … businesses will suffer this fool week after week.